The social value of candidate HIV cures: Actualism versus possibilism

13Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A sterilising or functional cure for HIV is a serious scientific challenge but presents a viable pathway to the eradication of HIV. Such an event would be extremely valuable in terms of relieving the burden of a terrible disease; however, a coordinated commitment to implement healthcare interventions, particularly in regions that bear the brunt of the HIV epidemic, is lacking. In this paper, we examine two strategies for evaluating candidate HIV cures, based on our beliefs about the likelihood of global implementation. We reject possibilist interpretations of social value that do not account for the likelihood that a plan to cure HIV will be followed through. We argue, instead, for an actualist ranking of options for action, which accounts for the likelihood that a cure will be low cost, scalable and easy to administer worldwide.

References Powered by Scopus

Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men

4177Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women

2626Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Long-term control of HIV by CCR5 delta32/delta32 stem-cell transplantation

1536Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering

48Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Applying the Behavioural and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) Functional Framework to HIV Cure Research

37Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ethical issues in HIV remission trials

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brown, R., & Evans, N. G. (2017). The social value of candidate HIV cures: Actualism versus possibilism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103125

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 12

80%

Researcher 2

13%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 8

53%

Social Sciences 4

27%

Philosophy 2

13%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free